Diaries

Note: Sorry this is so late – work and the holidays conspired against me this year.

Sigh. Another regular season ends with a disappointing loss that could have been a win. Buoyed by a great game plan, the Wolverines jumped out to lead, made me break my promise not to have any hope whatsoever, and then the football gods took that hope away and crushed my heart. Again. Yeah, Harbaugh has things pointed in the right direction and the future is bright. But I live in the present and in the present I feel like shit (Edit: this goes double after the Outback Bowl – see part 2).

And so, evidently, do most of you. As I will explain below in just a bit, game satisfaction “without trolls” checked in at 27.7. This was almost identical to the Wisconsin game (28.8). This surprised me some given it was another loss to our biggest rival, though the Wolverines certainly played a better game than most people expected. A less optimistic take, on the other hand, might be that the Michigan fan base has become a bit numb from losing so often to the Buckeyes and that low expectations led to less anger and upset than is sometimes the case.

Figure 1. OSU Game Satisfaction

Season satisfaction (without trolls) also held more or less steady from last week at 36.8. In scientific terms this means the season was…not good. As I discussed last week, even if your rational self knew with great certainty that an 8-4 record was the most likely result of this season, you still felt like shit on Saturday. It turns out that expecting 8-4 and *experiencing” 8-4 are two totally different things. Sure the season probably would have felt worse had we expected to go undefeated, but losing is losing and no one likes it.

Figure 2. Season Satisfaction after OSU

Thus the regular season ended with satisfaction on a decided down note after the "Peters Resurgence."

Figure 3 Season Trends

Themes, Thoughts, Trends

Here Come the Trolls

The trolls found our survey. It’s the Internet so I knew it was bound to happen, but still. This is why we can’t have nice things. Of the 227 responses I logged for the OSU survey, I estimate that somewhere between 15 and 33 of them were our enemies – you probably know them as “jive turkeys.”

How do I know they were trolls? Well, if you rated both your game and season satisfaction as 100, as 15 people did, then I’m pretty sure you’re a Buckeye (or possibly a Schadenfreude Sparty) taking the survey for the lulz. Another 5 people rated their game satisfaction as 100 but with a strange variety of other season satisfactions. And another 13 people rated their game satisfaction as somewhere between 80 and 99.

Now, I’m sorry, but an actual living and breathing Michigan fan does not give this game an 80. Did you? If you are a real Michigan fan and you did, please let me know in the comments. Otherwise I have to assume you were high or live in Ohio, or likely both.

That said, after a long conversation with my scientifically inclined son, I realized that in the name of science we couldn’t just delete data, even Buckeye data. So in the interest of transparency and truth and the like, here is your satisfaction sensitivity analysis, under various troll identification parameters.

As you can see, there are enough trolls to make a difference in the results.

Table 1. Who’s Trolling?

Troll ID Rule

Game Sat

Season Sat

# Clean Responses

# Trolls

Assume no trolls

37.7

42.2

227

0

Game & Season Sat = 100

33.3

38.1

212

15

Game Sat = 100

31.6

38

207

20

Game Sat = 80+

27.7

36.8

194

33

Another way to find the trolls is to use a simple scatterplot. As you can see, there is an obvious central cluster and then there are some obvious outliers near the maximums on each axis. These are probably your trolls. It’s even more obvious something’s fishy when you compare this data to the data from Michigan’s wins (which were unlikely to result in opposing fans filling out our survey). In those cases there just aren’t any fans adopting the 0/0 position – so I’m pretty confident we can rule out anyone who answered 100 on both counts.

Figure 4. Scatter Trolls

What I am curious about, though, is what you think the most reasonable cut off point is. Is there any way a Michigan fan gave that a 100 for game satisfaction? Or an 80? Maybe on the notion that the lads did their best and gave the Buckeyes all they could handle, etc., etc.?

The Road Ahead

I was going to point out how there was one more shot at redemption, a chance for at least a moderately optimistic ending on the season.

But since I’m writing this after the Outback Bowl I won’t bother.

Stay tuned for part 2 for results from the Outback Bowl and to see how other B1G fanbases fared this season.

Hey, so Ace has been very forthcoming about some super serious stuff he’s been dealing with for a long time. He’s put together something if you’d like to help out people going through similar experiences. You should click here:

Analysis: After two games of outplaying a better team, Michigan definitely ceded the puck to Minnesota for the majority of this game. Ironic that this is the one of the last three games that they won. Two of their four non-empty netters were mostly luck. Michael Pastujov threw a puck into the slot and it was kicked back at Robson and between his pads. Warren’s first goal went off of his stick heel (after making a very nice break for the slot, though) and just inside the post. To be fair, Dancs picked a corner and Marody hid a nice snipe under the bar, though, for the first and third Michigan goals. Both Pastujovs are starting to look a little more dangerous, and I also thought Sanchez created some in the offensive zone. Now, if he can just not take silly penalties...

Today's front page post about the future off the basketball team, combined with the general optimism surrounding the program, has inspired me to go back and compare this year's recruiting class to the 2012 one. That 2012 class is easily the best in recent Michigan mens basketball history so the comparison is not in the "how succesful will the 2018 class be compared to the 2012 class" but more just to compare the recruiting rankings and how the recruits fit into Beilein's system.

Before I look at the 2012 and 2018 classes, I wanted to remind everyone of the classes in between. For simplicity's sake, all recruiting info (individual player ratings, stars and class rankings) will be pulled from 247 using their composite rankings.

Position is position listed on their 247 recruiting profile, not the position they necessarily played at Michigan.

Austin Hatch and Brent Hibbits were both excluded from the tables (Hatch for medical reasons, Hibbits because he was never a scholarship player).

Hibbits was listed in the same class as Wagner but without any rankings or info. Despite Wagner having a rating of .9273 (and being listed as playing in Berlin, NY), the class has an average rating of .9430, which makes no sense.

The best recruiting class by far was the 2013 class with Irvin, Walton and Donnal, all of which were 4 stars. It was the 14th best class in the country that year per 247.

The worst class was the 2014 class, with an average rating of .8818. This fits with what we now know from that class, with DJ and MAAR being the only contributors and MAAR being the only player to stay for 4 years. The fact that the class had 5 players pushed the class to 30th in the nation per 247, which actually puts it second highest of these classes.

The highest rated recruit of these players was Kam Chatman in 2014 (lol), with a national ranking of 27 and composite grade of .9896. He just barely beat out Zak Irvin who was 28th and had a grade of .9876.

The lowest rated recruit was MAAR, also part of that 2014 class, with a .8034 composite grade and 434 national ranking.. He beat out fellow 2014 recruit Aubrey Dawkins who had a composite grade of .8218 and ranking of 396.

Now the 2012 and 2018 classes:

2012: Overall Class Rank - 8, B1G Class Rank - 2, AVG Rating -.9373

Name

Position

Recruiting Stars

Composite Grade

National Ranking

State Ranking

GR3

SF

5

.9934

17

1 (IN)

Mitch McGary

PF

4

.9897

28

3 (NH)

Nik Stauskas

SG

4

.9369

110

5 (MA)

Spike Albrecht

PG

3

.8556

221

9 (MA)

Caris Levert

SG

3

.8444

239

5 (OH)

2018: Overall Class Rank - 9, B1G Class Rank - 1, AVG Rating -.9434

Name

Position

Recruiting Stars

Composite Grade

National Ranking

State Ranking

Ignas Brazdeikis

SF

4

.9867

34

1 (ON)

Brandon Johns

PF

4

.9718

69 (nice)

2 (MI)

David Dejulius

PG

3

.9331

132

5 (MI)

Colin Castleton

PF

3

.9330

133

14 (FL)

Adrien Nunez

SG

3

.8924

206

2 (CT)

Some comparisons between the two classes:

Both classes are top 10 nationally and the 2018 class is currently 1st in the B1G (although as more unsigned top propsects commit, both those rankings will drop).

The 2018 class has a higher average ranting per player (.9434 vs .9373), which is the second highest of any of these classes behind the 2013 class.

Both classes consist of 5 players. Unlike the 2014 class which also consisted of 5 players, both the 2012 and 2018 classes consist of 5 player classes where each player fits a unique position on a Beilein team.

PG - Albrecht vs Dejulius

SG - Levert/Stauskas vs Nunez

SF - Levert/Stauskas vs Brazdeikis

PF - GR3 vs Johns

C - McGary vs Castleton

This is not saying the play style of each player matches up directly (ie Castleton is not the same player as McGary, he's a stretch big compared to McGary being a post player), but just where they fit on the floor.

The 2012 class had a better top of the class (McGary and GR3 were more highly regarded than any of the 2018 guys), but the depth of the 2018 class is much better. Iggy and Johns are the only 4 stars but Dejulius and Castleton are 3 and 4 spots away respectively from being 4 stars, and Nunez is a solid mid tier 3 star compared to Albrecht and Levert being bottom tier 3 stars. This is what pulls the average 2018 rating above the average 2012 rating.

Overall the 2018 class should be a great class and another reason to be excited about the future of Michigan basketball. However this should also serve as a reminder that college athletes are fickel beasts and recruiting rankings pretty much mean nothing once the kids get to campus.

The highest rated recruit for Michigan between 2013 and 2017 (Chatman) was arguably the worst recruit in that time, while the lowest rated guy (MAAR) has been arguably the most consistent player in that time. Even in the 2012 class the lowest rated guy (Levert) has had a better career than either of the top 2 guys in that class. So while expectations for the future should be high, keep in mind that struggles and busts may/will occur and are to be expected.

No one expected this. Georgia finished the 2016 season 8-5. Their offense would end the season ranked 93rd in S&P+, finishing no higher than 80th in any of the six categories. Their defense was far better -- 34th in S&P+ -- but still a far cry from elite. How did an 8-5 team that lost to four unranked teams (Ole Miss, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, and Georgia Tech)--and one bad ranked team (Florida)--catapult themselves into an SEC Championship and, ultimately, the CFP Championship game? (scroll to bottom for TL;DR summary)

There are several answers to that question, and there had to be. Perhaps it's easier to start with what did not change: the staff. Smart brought back a nearly identical staff, only changing his defensive line coach (the one holdover from the Richt staff).

Freshman wunderkind Jacob Eason did not return

Lots of statniks will tell you that a returning QB is crucial to success. Jacob Eason was said to be one of the keys to Georgia taking a big step forward on offense in 2017. While has freshman campaign certainly was not a wild success, a 2:1 TD:INT ratio and a 120 rating had Georgia fans and coaches salivating about what he might be able to do in year two.

From DawgNation:

Quarterback Jacob Eason is now entering his second year, which will help. Last year not only was he a freshman, but he was learning a new offense, the pro-style scheme and drop-backs being different from the shotgun and spread-oriented offense he played in high school. That led to the offense being slower than desired last year, partly out of Eason needing to get the call right, and partly the coaches wanting to manage him and those calls. “The training wheels are off this year,” Wims said. “And they’re giving him the ability to make checks. They’re giving him the ability to be a veteran, second-year quarterback.”

This was the "quick fix" the offense needed--an experienced QB. Some other minor tweaks were discussed in the same article, but this was largely the same offense, and even a lot of the same personnel: Chubb and Michel returned almost all of the rushing production, and five of the six top receivers returned.

And then Jacob Eason got hurt on the third series of the season.

So...same offense, same staff, mostly the same players. Now with a true freshman QB. How did it go from #93 to #11 in S&P+? From 24.5 PPG (#102) to 35.4 PPG (#20) in scoring? You won't like the answer...

"I remember, in my disappointment, I just don’t think we blocked really well the whole first year at Georgia," Chaney said. "And you say, 'What do you want to change?' People think change is putting a wideout over there and a tight end over here. Hell, I want to block better. I just wanted to block better. I sit here a year later and if you asked me, 'What’s the difference from last year to this year?' We blocked better." "You can’t look at our success and say, 'Oh, Chaney went to the RPO. The dumbass didn’t do it a year ago, now he is,'" Chaney said, drawing laughs. "I wish it were that easy. Sorry, I didn’t mean to ruin your article."

But yeah, let's talk about the RPOs for a moment, because there is more to that than Chaney lets on. The article rightly focuses on the mentality change and the desire for Georgia to assert themselves on the ground, but it does ignore that the Georgia offense did make a pretty significant change in moving almost entirely to a shotgun offense.

See, Georgia is a "manball" team that tried to hire Dan Enos. Their offense is predicated on a smashmouth style that grinds down opponents with superior OL and RB play, putting Georgia in a position to control the game and win the 4th quarter. And in 2017, they were highly successful, posting 3,876 rushing yards along with 42 TDs at a 5.79 YPC clip. Having guys like Michel and Chubb in your backfield helps, but in 2016 virtually the same guys produced 2,486 yards at 4.66 YPC, and only 18 TDs.

Despite a bad OL in 2016 and losing two starters (sound familiar?), the 2017 OL was dominant, ending the season 12th in adjusted line yards and 9th in opportunity rate. Those numbers were good enough to weather a 109th ranking in sack rate.

Yes, it turns out that Jake Fromm was far better than anyone could have imagined. But let's not forget that Eason was the starting QB, suggesting that he won the job. So perhaps it wasn't Fromm's talent, but his youth, that forced Georgia to change their offense into an offense, that, well, works.

Fromm's arrival meant simplification. It meant more shotgun, more spread, and even more running. So while the addition of RPOs was ballyhooed as the "key" change to the offense, the reality was that a simpler version was required in order for Fromm to even operate the unit. Shotgun sets with more receivers spreads the defense out, making it harder to disguise coverages and blitzes, simplifying reads, footwork, and even hand-offs for the QB. Georgia is still a power, pro-style offense, but Fromm spent nearly all of his snaps in the pistol or shotgun, and not becuase of a "zone read" or QB run philosophy. The goal was to run a simple enough offense for a true freshman to make the most of the available talent.

Georgia's passing attack ranked #106 in YPG, but Fromm's 160.09 rating was good for 8th in the country. Meanwhile--out of shotgun sets running power football--the running game flourished into the #2 rushing attack in the SEC and #7 in rushing S&P+.

Overall, Georgia is one of only four teams to be in the top seven in all six S&P+ categories, demonstrating the ability of their offense to find efficiency in the passing and running game.

Summary and Conclusions

Georgia did NOT make offensive staff changes, and still went from a five-loss, incompetent offense to one of the best in college football

Georgia did NOT change offensive philosophy--they are still a pro-style outfit focused on a power running game.

Georgia did NOT change much of their skill position personnel.

Georgia had a true freshman QB and two new OL.

Georgia did change to a more simplified, shotgun-oriented offense, increasing their efficiency in both the running and passing game.

The biggest difference in the success of the offense was improvement and emphasis in blocking.

Simplification, a clear identity, and repetition of base concepts...sounds like a recipe for a successful college offense, and maybe, just maybe, Michigan can make a Georgia-like leap next season.

Analysis: Michigan did not have a fantastic offensive game from a volume standpoint, but they did create a lot of good scoring opportunities from the house area– especially the low slot. Having Quinn Hughes available really does add an extra dimension to the offense. There were multiple times that he took the puck end-to-end or just skated circles around the offensive zone looking for nooks and crannies to drop the puck. Once again, though, regardless of what Michigan was able to create, Cale Morris was up to the task. The only goal came on a rapid-fire rebound for Josh Norris after Hughes got deep in the house and forced a reactive save. Overall, it was an encouraging output against a good defense and an elite goalie. Soon, though, they’re going to have to find the back of the net.

I don’t have a chart for this, yet –or a great place to add this- but I counted Michigan getting three odd-man rushes on offense. They had a 2v1 and a couple of 3v2s. The Wolverines generated one good shot and the puck hopped Hughes’ stick, otherwise he would have had an open look.

A roundup of numerous rumors regarding current commits, class size, possible transfers, and the coaching staff. The position of DC is still open, and Jeff Casteel is a strong possibility. Brian refutes the idea that the 3-3-5 wouldn’t work in the Big 10.

Rich Rodriguez put that team together, and though he was absent the framework of that team's offense and defense were his responsibility. That team's offensive and defensive coordinators will be Michigan's offensive and defensive coordinators. That team's recruiting coordinator will be Michigan's recruiting coordinator. And that team was a national-championship-caliber one cobbled together from quarterbacks LSU wanted as a wide receiver and terror-beast fullbacks from Division III schools in Wisconsin.

Basketball will not have a lot of effort dumped into it. They're really brutal this season and I'm just not that into college basketball. Hideous refereeing, that kiddie three-point line, and games against Northwestern are detraction enough when your team is better than the Wildcats. When it's debatable? Not so much.

Expect at least a couple sleeper types and possibly a JUCO or two. (I've been told that Rodriguez is talking with the admissions department about a couple of JUCO quarterbacks.) I also expect Rodriguez to pursue already-committed recruits in the Midwest corridor he picked up most of his Mountaineers in: meh dual-threat QB Dominick Britt, a Cinci commit, virtually anyone in the Pittsburgh area he thinks can help out, and IN QB Marqueis Gray, who committed to freakin' Minnesota at the AA game.

Assumptions going forward: the shredding thing was much ado about precisely nothing, Rodriguez is neither Satan or Carr, and no one should particularly care about the outcome of the WVU-Rodriguez lawsuit. Occasional links might make their way into UV or on the sidebar; from now on this is all sideshow.

January 24 - Thursday

OSU fans are upset that Pryor is considering Michigan and incredulous that there could be a breath of wrong-doing about their program. Probably a good time to recap their recent improprieties.

The Free Press' logic is probably straightforward: I bet he gets a lot of hits on his pieces. Every time he writes a rip job on someone, incensed people post links on the relevant message boards. Despite the 100% guaranteed "don't give this guy attention" response posted two seconds after the initial link, people click and absorb the latest tripe.

January 29 - Tuesday

Quarterback Mailbag. OSU fans pushback against Brian, saying he could damage Pryor’s career by insinuating that he has been involved with anything unethical.

January 30 - Wednesday

Wednesday Recruitin’. Not much going on yet. Marcus Witherspoon is solid now, but JB Fitzgerald is saying nice things about Rutgers.

January 31 - Thursday

Hello SC CB JT Floyd. He had been a Tennessee commit for about a year, but was recruited by Carr and Rodriguez.

Pryor might be pushing off his decision until after signing day. In retrospect of the 2008 season this explanation seems much more plausible:

If he pushes things back it's to visit spread-friendly Oregon, not the act of a guy who's a "lock" anywhere. Unless, as the hardcore tinfoil-hat types have decreed, Pryor is such an OSU lock that he's under orders from Tressel to lead Michigan on until such time as other options like BJ Daniels and Justin Feagin have freaked out and gone elsewhere.